Student written Head-to-Head competition: PRI VACY · terrorism, ideologies and beliefs and...

www.debatingmatters.com/globaluncertainties

SCHOOLS' NETWORK

Student written Head-to-Head competition:

PRIVACYProduced by


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


The Global Uncertainties Schools Network was set up by the Institute of Ideas’ Debating Matters Competition and is supported by the Research Councils UK (RCUK) programme ‘Global Uncertainties: Security for all in a Changing World’. Throughout the Spring, the Global Uncertainties School Network ran a series of day long events with students up and down the country, in which participants explored through debate and discussion some of the themes of the Global Uncertainties Programme, including terrorism, ideologies and beliefs and cyber-security.

Following the success of the day events, participating students were invited to take part in a written head-to-head exchange competition, in which they discussed some of the themes of the programme further. Twenty-two students participated overall.

Published here are the winning exchanges and the feedback from a panel of expert judges who were asked to decide on the winning contributions and to make an assessment of the quality of arguments overall.

overview

Students participating in the Global Uncertainties Schools Network were invited to take up the challenge of entering into written head-to-head exchanges with their peers on the debate themes they discussed and explored at live events earlier in the year. Those students who explored the issue of privacy were invited to debate the motion:

“We should not expect our onlineactivities to remain private”Students who took up the challenge were randomly assigned one side of the debate, FOR or AGAINST, to propose and defend. As can be seen below, the judges of the competition were impressed with the sophistication of the arguments employed by the students, and their tenacity, whilst also noting the difficulty they had in conceptualising privacy — though as Dr Anne-Marie Oostveen points out, they are by no means alone in that.We hope that you enjoy reading the judges’ feedback and the students’ exchanges. Debating Matters would also like to thank and commend those students that didn’t make it through to the final three; your contribution to this exciting and experimental project was both appreciated and commended by the judges.


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


As with Debating Matters live debates, there is much to be learned by students from the feedback and constructive criticism of the judges. Below, you can read:

• The results and reasons why judges chose each student for 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. • The judges’ overall feedback on the debates, criticism and suggestions for improvement. • The winning head-to-head exchanges (1st, 2nd and 3rd place).

judges

Rob Killick, Chief Executive Officer, cScape Rob is the CEO of cScape. He is also a regular media commentator and has spoken at numerous public conferences. Rob’s writing has appeared in a wide range of publications ranging from economic think-tanks to marketing magazines and web publications in the UK and abroad. These include the Social Science Research Network, Journal of the Institute of Economic Affairs, The Times, spiked and Novo. His blog, UK After The Recession, which deals with how the UK can develop a dynamic economy once again, has attracted a wide audience.

Professor Tom McCutcheon, Fellow, Information Management Department, Defence Science and Technology LaboratoryTom leads a range of forward looking ICT research programmes for defence and wider government specialising in dependable socio-technical systems, pervasive ICT and complex adaptive systems. He is a registered EU Expert evaluator, a member of the EPSRC review college and holds a visiting chair at Newcastle University in Computing Science.

Dr Anne-Marie Oostveen, Research Fellow, Privacy Values Network, Oxford Internet InstituteAnne-Marie is a Research Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, a department within the Social Sciences Division of the University of Oxford. She works on the Privacy Value Networks research project, whose aim is to develop and apply new methodologies for the study of privacy and to help government and business to understand the value of personal data, as well as the value and risks for other stakeholders.


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


judges general comments

Rob Killick, Chief Executive Officer, Cscape The issue of internet privacy is highly contentious and fraught with difficulty. This is no surprise given that what we are dealing with is something entirely new; a global information system accessible by anybody with a cheap electronic device, capable of storing and sharing the entire knowledge of the planet, past and present and thus reflecting all aspects of human experience from the sublime to the disgusting.It is important that we start from this total understanding of the phenomenon when discussing issues such as privacy. That is why a good debate on this has to encompass all aspects of the internet, from the technical to the social. Most of the contributions to the debate fell somewhere in the middle of this, some focusing too much on the technical, others discounting it entirely. The winners were those who came closest to looking at the problem in its totality and engaging with it at that level. The point one would like them to have got to is that the internet is a human invention and as such can and should be controlled by humans. Control in this instance indicates self control much more than state control. That is why the Internet, at the level where it is puerile, sordid, repressive or dangerous, represents human culture at a certain point in its history. Further human progress can be served only by freedom, not repression.


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


Tom McCutcheon, Visiting Professor, School of Computing Science, Newcastle University Overall the exchanges were impressive. They were typified by the use of well structured, cogent arguments leading to precise engagement and, in most cases, a well presented summary. The better debaters displayed a good understanding of the subject matter and were able to place it in the wider context, which is essential to success. What separated the ultimate winners from their peers was their clarity of thought. They demonstrated a vice like grasp of the fundamentals of the discussion topic, focussed their argument around it and conveyed their point of view to maximum effect. They were invariably quick to seize upon weaknesses, or presumed weaknesses, in their opponent’s case and used this to inject additional weight or information to their own.Even the best debaters made some slip ups. These included a poor understanding of the history of the internet, a tendency to exceed word count limits and the occasional lapse from reason into hyperbole. However these were more than offset by such strengths as Alice’s passionate, human rights based case, Fred’s skilful deconstruction of the concept of privacy and Fern’s comprehensive, well referenced, structured approach. Nonetheless, careless or emotive slips should be avoided when possible as they can be exploited to devastating effect by a talented adversary. Beware!There were no obvious intellectual gaps in the debate and it was stimulating to note that all the better debaters, not just the winning three, had their own unique take on the motion. This free thinking really made the judging exercise a joy and reinforces the quality and diversity of thought of the contestants.


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


Dr Anne-Marie Oostveen, Research Fellow, Privacy Values Network, Oxford Internet InstituteI found the arguments presented by the candidates engaging and well-written. Overall, the students made good use of the materials provided by the Debating Matters website. However, there are some ways in which the candidates could have strengthened their cases. What was immediately noticeable was that very few of the students attempted to conceptualise ‘privacy’ before arguing for or against the motion ‘We should not expect our online activities to remain private’. This is not surprising given the fact that for decades scholars worldwide have been struggling to define what privacy is, what the value of privacy is and how to measure the value of privacy. Arthur Miller already noted in 1971 that privacy is ‘exasperatingly vague and evanescent’. And this is true. Privacy is many different things to many different people, with the layman’s understanding of the concept often broader and more inclusive than the views of scholars, lawyers and policy makers. It is however important to explain what one considers to be privacy (is it a human right, is it an individual need?) in order to frame the argument.Privacy has become one of the most contested social issues in the information age. Technological developments have made it possible to gather, store and disseminate increasing amounts of data about individuals. Policy makers have to negotiate the boundaries of privacy in favour of other competing interests such as national security or efficiency. In the debates, most of the candidates focused on the security aspect, ignoring the convenience/efficiency interests. A point about data gathering for national security purposes that the students arguing ‘for’ the motion could have used against their opponents argument ‘my data is nobody’s business’ is the fact that information gathered online might perhaps not even be seen by human eyes. Computers store the data and analyse it for patterns. Because of the sheer volume, the data are first sifted by computer for information that might have intelligence value. This initial sifting keeps most private data from being read by any intelligence officer.


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


FIRSTPLACE

SECOND PLACE

THIRD PLACE

Alice Boorman, Folkestone Grammar School for Girls, FolkestoneJudges said of Alices’s arguments:Alice argued her case cogently, skilfully and passionately. Her strong grasp of both the technical subject matter and the wider societal context enabled her to get right to the heart of the issue. Her focus was strong and consistent. She engaged well, and to good effect. Impressive.

Fred Spong, The Harvey Grammar School, FolkestoneJudges said of Fred’s arguments:Fred showed critical thinking in outlining both sides of the argument and presented a clear overview of the varied reasons why he thinks online activities should not remain private. He spotted the flaws in his opponent’s arguments and pointed them out. His debate was well-written and engaging. Also, Fred was the only one to actually ask what the benefits of privacy are. He does not conceptualise privacy satisfactorily but at least tries to bring up its value (or in his argument — lack of value).

Fern Champion, Folkestone Grammar School for Girls, FolkestoneJudges said of Fern’s arguments:Fern’s well developed sense of balance underpinned her carefully structured argument. She was obviously fully aware of — and capitalises on — the wider legal and social environment. She engaged skilfully and held her focus well while avoiding emotive pitfalls. She finished her argument on a very convincing note.

RESULTS

The three ‘special mentions’ from the judges were: Sophia Ahmed, Folkestone Grammar School for Girls, Dale Sinclair, The Harvey Grammar School and Kane Treadwell, The Harvey Grammar School.SPECIAL MENTIONS


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


A head-to-head exchange between Dale Sinclair, Harvey Grammar School, Folkestone (who received a special mention) arguing FOR the motion and Alice Boorman, Folkestone School for Girls (awarded 1st place) arguing AGAINST the motion.

Dale Sinclair:

“Expecting something to remain private on the internet is a preposterous idea”Alice Boorman:

“It seems somewhat barbaric that government officials believe that by censorship and delving into and watching every person’s internet history that they will prevent hatred, terrorism and malevolent propaganda.”

DEBATE:“WE SHOULD NOT EXPECT OUR ONLINE ACTIVITIES TO REMAIN PRIVATE”

the winning exchanges


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


Exchange 1: For — Dale SinclairExpecting something to remain private on the internet is a preposterous idea, which unfortunately not many people know.With so much security features on your PC, which are constantly updated, upgraded and redesigned, it’s easy to see why it looks secure.But the reality couldn’t be further from the truth, the internet is a technological anarchy with a pretty facade. With the right tools anyone can grab anything that is on the web, with little trace, whether it be emails, browsing history or personal details.Lets just say my mother wants to email a friend, she first has to connect to the internet, if done via a wireless network then she is immediately vulnerable to data interception, all someone has to do is ARP spoof, which can be done with very little effort after a ten minute Google search, and they can suddenly see everything she is sending and receiving, such as personal and financial details. Secure network keys don’t help here and neither does the £50 monthly security software subscription.Next comes the router which is plugged into your phone cable, and did you ever realise that your phone cable can connect to an awfully large number of other phone networks? It must be about a billion or so. All that’s protecting you from all those other devices is a firewall which, to be honest, isn’t exactly top notch, sure it’ll protect you from your average teenage script-kiddie but anyone who actually knows what they’re doing isn’t going to have too much trouble getting around that.

“The internet is a technological anarchy with a pretty facade”

FIRST HEAD-TO-HEAD DEBATE


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“National governments suddenly realised the massive devastation that terrorists could inflict”

If massive corporation and government firewalls are being bypassed on what seems to be a daily basis then your Norton firewall isn’t going to be able to put up much of a fight.This data is then sent to your data service provider who make logs and backups of all the data you receive and transmit, for “technical and security purposes”. So anyone who’s phone line is owned by, say British Telecom, probably has everything they’ve sent over the internet stored in a basement in the middle of London, ready to be accessed if so needed, let’s all hope that they stay secure for the next few hundred years, because it could potentially become a factory that manufactures closets and skeletons.So all data usually gets shoved through a government crime filter and then passed onto to whoever the data is being sent to, where again it has several opportunities for being intercepted by government workers, foreign government hackers, local police, or maybe that peculiar kid who lives across the road.And everywhere this piece of data has been through now has an effectively permanent copy of this data, not very private if you ask me.Now you may be wondering why the government wants to start trawling through your personal stuff.Once upon a time this would of been thought of as an unlikely thing to happen, why would the government invade our privacy? But that was before terrorist events such as 9/11 and the July bombings.National governments suddenly realised the massive devastation that terrorists could inflict and that it was urgent to deal with this threat imminently and as effectively as



SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“There is no such thing as privacy on the internet”

possible. But no human, or even a team of humans could regulate the internet, the sheer size of such a task is beyond overwhelming. But the internet can be regulated if we bring in the age old tactic of ‘Fight fire with fire’.A room full of government — super fast computers could regulate the internet, and a team of government agency workers could regulate the array of super-computer, so in effect we can answer the clichéd question of ‘who watches the watchers,’ the answer is government agencies, they watch the computers who watch the internet. But I imagine a lot of people want their online activities to remain private so would oppose this. Thanks to terrorism, governments have the perfect excuse for doing such a thing, ‘we monitor what you’re doing so we can keep the community safe,’ such is the case with the USA patriot act — effectively an act that ensures there is no such thing as privacy on the internet.



SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“There simply must be an ulterior motive to internet monitoring and intervention”


Exchange 1: against — alice boorman“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment... It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time.” — George Orwell 1984George Orwell, a prestigious modern classic writer, provides a world in which privacy does not exist. One cannot sleep, talk, write and even breathe personal opinion and private thought. Although to the farthest extent, it demonstrates a powerful analogy and example to what life could be like if privacy is to be stolen from us. Who knows that a lack of privacy on the internet will not lead to a slippery slope of mistrust, suspicion and intervention on a ‘Big Brother’ level? Terrorism is one of, if not the most given excuse for the obstruction of our rights of privacy in Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, especially for the internet and telecommunications. However, it is significant to note many critics have argued that this is an exploited issue; Juan Cole stated that she has“...found no evidence based on my own observations that a virtual world is suitable for planning a terror operation.” By some professionals, it is simply nonsensical. So why should we be mistrusted? There simply must be an ulterior motive to internet monitoring and intervention; protection and security may no longer be an excuse. There has been recent controversy with the Home Office issuing a privacy policy named the “interception modernisation programme” (IMP). This was introduced to observe emails and browsing etc of the entire population. This presents a terrifying mirror image of what we see today in Communist China, a reflection of pre-War Germany and a revolutionary


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“This form of intrusion is instantly implying that we are not innocent, we are unworthy of trust”


Russia. Democracy is at stake when trying to argue the pros of our online activities being open to viewing and judgement. Just as we vote with the privacy of the voting booth in democratic elections we should have the choice, the freedom and the privacy to share our views with whom we choose and how. The legislation proposed by the Home Office, and rightly delayed, if in the wrong hands has the potential for serious damage and abuse. This view is not only expressed by the public but also by the London Internet Exchange, the organisation that represents over 300 communication companies, e.g. BT and Virgin, who also expressed concern over the proposed national observation and intrusion stating, “We view the description of the government’s proposals as ... disingenuous: the volume of data the government now proposes [we] should collect and retain will be unprecedented, as is the overall level of intrusion into the privacy of citizenry”.[1] The issue lies with the almost lack of discrimination within the IMP when deciding to observe all of our online activities. By officials deciding to monitor us all surely the majority of the innocents are being put into the pool of criminals and potential threats. What happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’? This form of intrusion is instantly implying that we are not innocent, we are unworthy of trust, and essentially, unless we are deemed to be behaving well we can only then be cleared as ‘innocent’. Fundamentally this lack of privacy is breaking down what we consider as a democratic constitution into a nation of suspicion and abuse. Furthermore, it seems somewhat barbaric that government officials believe that by censorship and delving into and watching every person’s internet history that they will prevent hatred, terrorism and malevolent propaganda. They seem to forget that yes, they may get rid of privacy on the internet, but it is the human race that produces the internet


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“We should not confuse the debate of “Security Vs. Privacy”, the debate in fact is “Control Vs. Liberty”.


and the hate on it, how do they propose to change those opinions? The internet itself is not the issue. Consequently, we should not confuse the debate of “Security Vs. Privacy”, the debate in fact is “Control Vs. Liberty”. Therefore we should expect our online activities to remain private, not only to protect ourselves from deceiving organisations and preying offenders, but also to maintain the basic Human Rights stated in Article 8 and to ensure that we do not find ourselves in a slippery-slope of Democracy Vs. Socialism. References: [1] http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/privacy/telephone-tapping-and- interception-of-communications/index.html and www.dictionary.com


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“The only way we can monitor the internet successfully is without discrimination.”

Exchange 2: For — Dale Sinclair“Who knows that a lack of privacy on the internet will not lead to a slippery slope of mistrust, suspicion and intervention on a ‘Big Brother’ level?” Preposterous, we’re facing an issue of privacy on the internet, not international domination. What you have illustrated is taking 1984 completely out of context. The lack of privacy in Orwell’s 1984 is not a cause of its dystopian society, but rather it is what enables this society to continue. To insinuate that someone reading my emails is going to cause a global dictatorship, an eternal world war or a national apartheid, such as in Orwell’s 1984, is perhaps a tad farfetched and somehow I just can’t picture people being snatched from their beds in the middle of the night by thought police, because they updated their twitter with political slander.In fact, let me raise something that you raised later in your argument, “it is the human race that produces the internet and the hate on it, how do they propose to change those opinions? The internet itself is not the issue.” That’s correct, the internet only contains what the people put on it, but are you seriously suggesting we should be changing the people? I think that it would more viable just to monitor the internet; after all we don’t want to end up in dystopian society such as the one portrayed in Orwell’s “1984” or Huxley’s “Brave New World” “The issue lies with the almost lack of discrimination” — Yes, if we take “issue” to be a positive statement. To monitor with discrimination is stupid, are you saying we should only monitor people we have already caught breaking the law, then how do we catch them in the first place? The only way we can monitor the internet successfully is without discrimination.



SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“Please tell me why an innocent should expect mistrust from one’s own government, a body whose purpose is essentially to protect its citizens, not criminalise them.”


Exchange 2: against — alice boormanThank you for explaining so diligently how someone would hack and intercept my internet usage and gain my personal information. We have both gathered that it is possible to do so, but principally I wish to know why one would essentially believe monitoring the internet is morally and democratically just, which you fail to do so. Please tell me why an innocent should expect mistrust from one’s own government, a body whose purpose is essentially to protect its citizens, not criminalise them?You state that the “sheer size” of the internet makes it an “overwhelming” task that no team of humans could maintain; yes this may be true, however let’s say it is possible to regulate the internet effectively. Should we simply accept they may be watching when I am having a personal conversation with a friend? I would not expect my mother to eavesdrop on my conversation with a friend, so why should I expect the government to do so?The statement “who watches the watchers” is most important, however to me this is infinitely regressive. Who watches the government after all? If the government cannot trust its citizens, then why should we trust the government, especially after instances such as the expenses issue? They are anything but innocent and just the same, need to be watched. Lastly, surveying the internet is far too problematic; the data-mining system that generates possible terrorist threats on the internet produces more than one billion false alarms for every real terrorist threat. That is 27 million investigations per day for a month. A “clearly ridiculous” concept. It is like finding a needle in a haystack. So ultimately, the government excuse for surveying our internet activities due to terrorism is essentially ineffective and a hollow justification.


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“Unless you actually are planning a terrorist attack, I don’t particularly think the government is going to care about personal conversations with your friend.”


concluding statements:for — dale sinclairFirstly, the government can’t just magically tell who is and isn’t an innocent, otherwise we wouldn’t have this whole problem with crime in the first place.The government has to treat everyone as if they could be undergoing criminal activities, and by doing this find criminals who they can criminalise and thus protect innocent citizens.And no, I wouldn’t expect your mother to eavesdrop on your conversations with your friends, but on the other hand I don’t think your mother has to worry if you’re a terrorist or not, because at the end of the day your mother isn’t the one who has to protect 61 million or so citizens.Unless you actually are planning a terrorist attack, I don’t particularly think the government is going to care about personal conversations with your friend.At least there is some solid truth behind your argument, you’re right, finding terrorist is hard, but what do you expect? Of course people aren’t going to end their blogs and emails with “p.s. I’m a terrorist, find personal details attached,” because they probably don’t want to be found, shocking. But what alternative is there? Should we just ignore that terrorists exist? Let them get on with whatever it is they’re planning?But maybe I’m wrong; maybe the government aren’t really looking for terrorists, perhaps it’s like you say, a facade put in place all for the ultimate goal of reading your personal conversations. Yes, it all fits, the government don’t really want nationwide security, all they want to know is the latest bit of juicy gossip.


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“We should make a stand and defend our rights rather than unthinkingly giving in and not questioning the governing body and their motives.”


concluding statements:against — alice boormanYou seem to have lost sight of the object of that analogy, I did in fact state that it may be to the “farthest extent”, and much like your original argument, its purpose was to emphasise the absolute extremity of a situation, do not waste words on hypocrisy.Secondly, where did I propose that we should change the people? I simply made a statement that you yourself deemed “correct”. You obviously hadn’t noted I was asking a rhetorical question, my point was to exaggerate the fact that if you monitor the internet, there is no question that hackers etc will abuse another method of technology. Therefore why should we accept monitoring on the internet if it’ll just happen again, just on another medium? We should make a stand and defend our rights rather than unthinkingly giving in and not questioning the governing body and their motives. After all, after one boundary is crossed it’s difficult to rebuild another. Lastly, on the subject of the malevolent propaganda on the internet, you question how this hatred would be minimised? Have you not heard of educating the ignorant?You cannot state that one’s opinion is “stupid”, that is simply ignorance in itself. I disagree with the suggestion that one should only monitor those who have already broken the law, that would of course be barbaric, but I am not concerned with the matter of who we should monitor, when essentially, we should not be monitored at all. Ethically speaking observing ones actions on the internet without one’s permission is a breach of our own human rights, if we download Firewall we expect it to fulfil its purpose, otherwise why create it? That is deception, it’s fraud, it’s a criminal offence. After all it is nonsensical to criminalise the innocent when the prosecutors are criminals themselves.


SCHOOLS' NETWORK



second HEAD-TO-HEAD DEBATE

A head-to-head exchange between Fred Spong, Harvey Grammar School, Folkestone (awarded 2nd place) arguing FOR the motion and Nathalie Preston, Folkestone School for Girls arguing AGAINST the motion.

Fred Spong

“The internet can be massively beneficial to humanity, but only if it is properly and correctly monitored for the protection of all of its users.”Nathalie Preston

“We should not give up lightly on the idea that we retain control of who knows what about our online activities”


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“Whilst the internet is undoubtedly valuable to society, the almost limitless possibilities for communication make it dangerous.”


Exchange 1: for — fred spongI’d first like to ask the opposition, what are the benefits of privacy? In the majority of circumstances, a human wants privacy so they can act, without fear of judgement, as they wish. Secondly, I’d like to ask, what use is the internet. The answer to this question is more obvious; the internet is a place where we can share, we can meet others with similar interests, and we can find information about people, places, hobbies, jobs, skills — the list goes on.Whilst the internet is undoubtedly valuable to society, the almost limitless possibilities for communication make it dangerous. Anyone can do a quick search on Google for a criminal extremist group they’re interested in, and within a few minutes be exchanging messages with other likeminded individuals, something which would be almost impossible in real life. Combine this with complete privacy and you have a recipe for disaster.In our everyday world, the police are quite rightly permitted to invade the privacy of a member of society they suspect are involved in illegal activity. Would you argue that for some inconceivable reason, the internet should not exist under the same boundaries? Whilst some people ‘enjoy their privacy’, the internet is the only place where people can easily act with complete anonymity. How does this influence them? To say that the influence is negative would be an understatement. Websites such a ‘4chan’ cater for hundreds of thousands of users, providing a completely anonymous place where users can communicate with images and text. The result? A disgusting filth-based image board which relies heavily on the degradation of women and ethnic minorities for cheap and sickening humour.


SCHOOLS' NETWORK



Admittedly, whilst this is an extreme example, it is indicative of the age old argument ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’ — an argument which is pivotal in this debate. Why should we be afraid of surrendering our privacy in a situation where criminal activity is concerned if we have committed no wrongdoing? You may argue that a minority of governments in politically unstable countries could abuse the power to invade the privacy of an individual suspected of illegal activity. But not only would this be an extremely rare occurrence which would no doubt be controlled and prevented by international regulations, but the relative harm done would be MASSIVELY outweighed by the crime prevention benefits of such an initiative. Whilst I’m by no means suggesting that everything we do online should be available to everyone, it is vital for our national security that the online activity of a suspected criminal is not untouchable.Now let’s look at the ideologies of either side of this debate. Whilst on the one hand, we have a world where each individual keeps their online activities close to their chest. A secretive world where nobody trusts anyone else and the worst in everybody comes out due to their impenetrable bubble of ‘anonymity’ and ‘privacy’. On the other hand however, we have an open and honest world, where people are not afraid to broadcast their true opinions, I’d like to ask the opposition, which of the two should we be encouraging?To summarise, we should be welcoming the internet as a new and exciting era, but we should be wary of the risks that come with it. The internet can be massively beneficial to humanity, but only if it is properly and correctly monitored for the protection of all of its users. We are happy to sacrifice some of our privacy for added security in every aspect of our life — so why should the internet be any exception? (603)

“To summarise, we should be welcoming the internet as a new and exciting era, but we should be wary of the risks that come with it.”


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“Far too regularly internet service providers and search engines routinely gather private details for commercial purposes and advertisements”


Exchange 1: against — nathalie prestonThe internet has transformed the way we live. But with every positive comes a negative- with the speed and convenience of the World Wide Web, comes new threats to our security, from extremist websites to virtual identity theft to cyber-espionage and viruses that can crash whole computer systems and delete entire hard-drives. On a daily basis, thousands of people around the world post a wide range of private information about themselves all over the internet; from photos on social networking sites to credit card details on eBay. Is it not right that we should expect this information to remain private?In the world we live in today, there are countless databases and security systems created with the sole aim of protecting us, therefore is it not right to believe internet privacy is no different? We use the internet for an increasing variety of purposes: for reading news, banking, even watching television, and much more. And not only do our own computers record information about all of these activities, but we leave a trail on other computers too, at work or school. Much of the time we don’t even think about this and imagine that what we do online is our own business. And it is our business. If we watched television at home, or paid a bill in the post office rather than online, this would be our business which no-one else would necessarily know about, therefore our online activities should not be any different. At the end of the day, what we do online is our business, nobody else’s.Far too regularly internet service providers and search engines routinely gather private details for commercial purposes and advertisements. Is this not a breach of freedom? On buying something off the internet, is it not reasonable not to expect to have your inbox plagued with emails from countless advertising companies 2 days later, that you have absolutely no interest in? Surely it should be taken for granted that if you buy something


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“We should not give up lightly on the idea that we retain control of who knows what about our online activities”


over the internet, your details are immediately protected, just as they would be in a shop.In a world where security is of upmost importance, highlighted very much so by the recent debate over the introduction of identity cards, does it not go hand in hand that people are screaming out for more privacy in all areas of life? There was huge opposition against identity cards, because everyone is concerned with their privacy. People’s information is not called their ‘private details’ for nothing; it is their business, no-one else’s. Just as people’s activity online is private and should be expected to stay that way. If we use the internet at work or school, management is generally entitled to monitor what we look at. And governments can require internet service providers to hand over information about individuals’ internet use if they believe they are involved in various crimes. The UK government recently created a new unit, the Communications Capabilities Directorate, to implement the controversial ‘Interception Modernisation Programme’, maintaining huge databases of people’s online activity. Does all this evidence not suggest private companies and governments can gather far too much information about our online activities with not too much hard work? We should not give up lightly on the idea that we retain control of who knows what about our online activities; at the end of the day, we live in a democracy, which is meant to highlight the idea of freedom. Surely the idea of our internet activities being public for all to access advocates the oppressive, controlling ways of dictatorship?


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“As intelligent members of society it is vital that some of us remove this idea that privacy is of paramount importance”


Exchange 2: for — fred spongFirstly, I’d like to point out that there is a difference between ‘Public’ and ‘Not Private’- something can be private to virtually everyone, but viewable by certain individuals, e.g. Whilst (as you mentioned) your credit card details must stay hidden from the public, a government authority with the right to see all online activity if there is evidence to suggest criminal activity is involved would only benefit the nation. If an identity thief had stolen your credit card and was draining it online, would you not want the option to track their purchase history to locate and reprimand them? Or would you prefer the criminal was protected because he has ‘a right to privacy’? Moving on, you wrote: ‘If we watched television at home, or paid a bill in the post office rather than online, this would be our own business …our online activities should not be any different’If we actually examine this claim in detail, it doesn’t stand up. Television we watch at home is by no means private, television companies are well within their rights to collect data about the television the nation watches. By the same token, if a person is suspected of buying illegal substances, any payments he made in the post office would be more than examinable by the police, and for good reason. In your own words, our online activities should not be any different; we should not expect them to remain private.As intelligent members of society it is vital that some of us remove this idea that privacy is of paramount importance. Sure it’d be nice to know that anything we do is our business and no-one else’s, but realistically, anyone who is not prepared to give up that right in the interest of keeping their peers safe, is downright selfish.


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“Ideologically speaking, surely a trusting world is better than a totally public world?”


Exchange 2: against — nathalie preston‘Privacy’ is defined as a ‘state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion’; clearly, regarding the internet ‘privacy’ has many advantages when it comes to online activities. The benefits of our online activity being kept private to the individual are large; it is a person’s right to ‘privacy’, including regarding the internet. In no terms does the idea that we should expect out online activities to remain private suggest that police should not have access to a member of society’s online activities if that person is suspect of illegal actions, just as they can now. This is, of course, a matter of protecting our national security. The idea, however, that the majority of the country’s law abiding citizen’s internet privacy could potentially be invaded by a click of a mouse is more definitely not right. Especially not in today’s democratic and supposedly free society. The opposition talks of the “age old argument of ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’”; however I urge another argument of ‘the minority always ruin things for the majority’ to be taken into serious consideration. In that, why should people’s internet activities be made public, when there is already provisions for the police, secret service and government to access potential criminals online actions, for example the new government unit called Communications Capabilities Directorate’. Why should all information be made public when there is only a minority of people’s information that the police and other organisations need to see?Ideologically speaking, surely a trusting world is better than a totally public world? Monitoring all people’s online activities is reminiscent of a dictatorial government. All of people’s online activities being published are not the way to encourage an open, honest


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“The constant monitoring suggests a suspicious world, full of contempt.”


world. The constant monitoring suggests a suspicious world, full of contempt.Privacy is a ‘civil right’ for everyone, which we should continually be fighting for, perhaps even more so in today’s almost ‘big brother’ like society where security at places, such as airports and shops, seems to be forever increasing with more and more security cameras and precautions taken. Some countries even to this day around the world are still fighting passionately to be given their civil rights, for example China and North Korea, to be granted. Therefore, surely the idea that we could potentially sacrifice our right to privacy in order for our online activities to no longer remain private is absolutely preposterous. The civil right of privacy, especially in today’s technically developing world, should be seen as more important than ever, not disregarded. To conclude, we should be able to expect our online activities to remain private. This is because, in agreement with the opposition, we should indeed be wary of the risks the development of the internet has created. It is obviously imperative that the World Wide Web is correctly monitored; however making all our online activities public is not the solution. Surely, it is our right that online activity should remain private, unless It is needed for police or government investigations?


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“My opponents approach of a secretive and closed internet... would contradict the very foundations upon which the internet was built; as a place to share.”


concluding statements:for — fred spongFirstly, I’d like to thank the opposition for agreeing with me on a point which was pivotal in this debate. We are agreed that authorities have every right to invade internet privacy if doing so is in the interest of protecting the public. Whilst this point alone is enough to conclude that our online activities should not remain private, I’d like to also bring more points to the table, which prove the motion without doubt.The internet exists under many rules and boundaries, which ensure that law and order are maintained. The sharing of information via the internet, of course, falls under the umbrella of these rules. That is, even if we choose to put our personal information (be it photos, contact details, or our plans for the evening) on the internet, anyone misusing the information with illegal and malicious intent is as punishable as they would be in real life. Combine this with effective policing which allows certain authorities access to suspected criminals internet usage and you make it very difficult for a would be criminal to use the internet as a medium for their misdeeds. As you can see, in a world where we do not expect our online activities to remain private not only do we reap the full benefits of the internet, the associated negative of a possibility of criminal activity is far outweighed by the allowance for more effective crime prevention. It is vital that we embrace the internet as a place to be honest and open, so that we can take full advantage of everything it has to offer. My opponents approach of a secretive and closed internet, would not only be dangerous and far less useful, it would contradict the very foundations upon which the internet was built; as a place to share.


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“It comes down to a basic civil liberty we should eagerly try to uphold.”


concluding statements:against — nathalie prestonBy no means in my argument am I attempting to dismiss the necessity of government and police authority to use the powers they have to view online activities when the need arises. This is a matter of national security and necessary to solve crimes and catch criminals. However, this only affects a minority of people; therefore, why should the rest of us suffer? When needed, this information can already be accessed by whoever it concerns; the rest of us should be able to trust our online activities remain private. Not because we have anything to hide, but because it is and should not be anyone else’s business. This does not make us selfish- at the end of the day it comes down to a basic civil liberty we should eagerly try to uphold. Therefore, I must disagree; privacy is of paramount importance. People do not want to be continually monitored in case of wrong doing, and should not be expected to put up with this. In today’s liberal democracy is seems only right we should be able to expect our online activities to remain private. Realistically, being the ‘intelligent members of society’ we are, we know where to draw the line between protecting our privacy and when this must be sacrificed in order to keep our peers safe. This of course means, for the most part, there should be no reason why we would not expect our online activities to remain private.


SCHOOLS' NETWORK



third HEAD-TO-HEAD DEBATE

A head-to-head exchange between Elizabeth Barker, Folkestone School for Girls arguing FOR the motion and Fern Champion, Folkestone School for Girls (awarded 3rd place) arguing AGAINST the motion.

Elizabeth Barker

‘As Steve Ramban (a private investigator specializing in Internet privacy cases) said, “Privacy is dead — get over it”.’Fern Champion

“Every house/ accommodation has its own postal address. You wouldn’t expect your postman to rifle through your mail before you delivered it would you? Why should it be any different with email?”


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“The internet is no longer a closed–system”


Exchange 1: for — elizabeth barker“The world is at your fingertips”. This is a well-known saying related to the internet; and how public is it if one is able to reach the whole world by using the internet? Surely, if one is going to connect with people from all round the world, how can one possibly expect their activities online to remain private? There will always be someone to a certain degree who is aware of your activities, whether its companies you are purchasing items from, or the government keeping a track on you as they feel the need to. The internet is no longer a closed system, as it was at the beginning when only universities and the Government accessed it. In today’s day and age, around 1,407,724,920 people use the internet daily. There is no way that one can keep all their online activities of that day private. It just isn’t physically possible. Parents may be concerned about their child’s welfare, and therefore may check which websites they have been on by accessing the history; which is pretty simple to find. Strict governments that fear opposition to their ruling such as China, are extremely strict on sites their citizens can access, ensuring that no sites that contain information or opinions against the government are accessible; which can results in severe punishments. This is where it is wrong. The ethos of discovery is that information wants to be free. People should be educated about the world outside them and events that occur that are vital for shaping history and the path we take. In addition to this, people should not expect their online activities to remain private due to the fact that the manipulation of normal people by extremist groups often happens when these people are contacted and brain washed by misleading and false claims. Therefore, if we all accept the fact that our online activities may not always be kept private, it will aid those who are investigating terrorists and trying to track them down in order to prevent


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“Only when the authorities notice a pattern of events is it that they start ‘keeping a watchful eye’”


our society from being brought down to its knees once more. Only then will people think, and consider that just maybe, if they had been a little more tolerant and understanding with the authorities and their goal to protect our country and its people, disasters such as the 7/7 bombings in London may have been prevented or dealt with better.Each and every computer/laptop has its own unique IP address, which means that you’re activities are recorded under that IP address. Only when the authorities notice a pattern of events is it that they start “keeping a watchful eye”. It is without these protections that we would not be as successful in capturing and sentencing those who pose a threat to society; such as child pornographers and terrorists. Furthermore, teachers have been warned to not even sign up to social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace, as if they post something that is deemed unacceptable, they run the risk of losing their job or getting suspended; this shows that nothing you do online can remain totally private.Lastly, it has been proven by many cases; such as that of Gary McKinnon, who recently managed to hack into 16 NASA computers and other American defence system files, that current privacy protections fail to provide the vital protection one needs, therefore we cannot expect our online activities to remain private; even if we want them too. As Steve Ramban (a private investigator specializing in Internet privacy cases) said, “Privacy is dead — get over it”.


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“69% of internet users state that they should know what websites know about them”


Exchange 1: against — fern championEmphasise of this motion should be placed on the word ‘should’. Of course we should expect our online activities to remain private; it is a question of moral obligation rather than of practicalities. Nothing supports my argument better than the development of the internet itself. It was first developed by the Americans as a method of spying on the Soviet Union during the cold war, and so we can argue that the internet originated for purposes of defying privacy. Now, however, it is a very different story. As the internet has expanded it has attracted a wider range of user, from the official business man to the casual facebook user, and so the demands of the individual using it have increased. Not only is privacy a basic human right but it is now a must and people naturally expect it. The internet has now developed to the stage where there is now a ‘cyber security industry’ — a whole industry dedicated to the prevention of violations of privacy. Social networking sites, such as facebook, now have to have privacy settings, allowing users to choose who can see specific parts of their profile. These settings have been proven to be popular by a ‘Pew Internet and American Life Studies’ survey whereby a majority (66%) of teenagers stated that they do use such privacy controls. A further 6% then went on to say that they have both their first and last name publicly accessible on social networking sites. [1] Further developments include ‘Fair Information Practices’ (FIPs) established in 1973. [2] These are legal practices of any website where information of an individual is exchanged. FIPs state that ‘people must be able to see what information is kept on them and should be able to correct it’ with 69% of internet users stating that they should know what websites know about them. [3] A further 92% [4] think that users should have the right to ask websites to delete their profile. FIPs also require that organisations keeping records of their users/clients must protect information from misuse, and that there must be ‘no


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“The expectations of confidentiality are surely the basic foundations to any society, to any democracy?”


secret collections of information’. [5] Finally, they demand that ‘information about a person should not be used for a purpose other than the one it was collected for, without consent’. What all of these developments show is that we have come to a stage where there is no questioning whether we should expect our online activities to remain private or not — we should and do and now have many networks of security protecting our privacy. There have even been amendments to the US Constitution in order to allow users to keep their confidentiality whereby ‘privacy is now recognised and protected as a fundamental human right. [6] Privacy protection in the US Constitution arise from ‘the First Amendment’s freedom of expression and association clauses, which protect information about those with whom we associate (political groups and social organizations), and offers protections for the materials that we create, access and read in the privacy of our homes’ [7], as well a many other amendments.In conclusion, the question of privacy is a matter of choice — it is fundamentally important that users of the internet have a choice of whom they share personal information with. The idea of email, for example, is that a user can privately communicate with another user, without wishing the message to be intercepted. There is therefore no reason why this privacy should be defied. Likewise, if somebody wishes to express themselves on a public forum or social networking site, then they have chosen to do so and so can still retain an element of privacy — they have shared only what they wish to. Although hard to monitor, this debate is not a question of can we expect our online activities to remain private i.e. is it practically possible, but rather should we expect it. The expectations of confidentiality are surely the basic foundations to any society, to any democracy?As a final note, if we did not expect our online activities to remain private, then how could this online debate possibly take place? If I did not expect this document to be read by


SCHOOLS' NETWORK



you, Debating Matters, only, then surely I would boycott email altogether, for fear of my argument reaching my opponent first thus giving them the advantage. It is a fact that we should expect our online activities to remain private, and if we did not then society would fail altogether.

References[1] http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-Privacy-and-Online- Social-Networks.aspx?r=1[2] http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/10/is-online-privacy-a-generational-issue/[3] Ibid[4] Ibid[5] http://www.cdt.org/content/chapter-two-privacy-basics[6] Ibid[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_privacy


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“Computers and the World Wide Web have changed so much, that one could say these precautions are outdated and irrelevant to the ways of society today.”


exchange 2: for — elizabeth barkerFern, whilst you correctly state that the internet has expanded and thus attracted a wider range of user, surely this means that more and more people will be using the internet; thus strengthening my point; that we should expect our online activities to remain private.I would also like to question your reference to the statistics that the American Life Studies’ presented, whereby a majority of teenagers asked stated that they do use privacy controls. Whilst the majority may have been over 50% (66%), you failed to state the number of participants in the study. In addition to this, the results may have been culture specific, as the study was only conducted in America, an extremely Westernised culture. Furthermore, the legal practices of any website where information of an individual is exchanged (otherwise known as Fair Information Practices’) were established in 1973; over 30 years ago. Computers and the World Wide Web have changed so much, that one could say these precautions are outdated and irrelevant to the ways of society today. Also, you state how one of the practices requires organisations not to have any secret collections of information. Surely, when it comes to the CIA, FBI and MI5, it is for our upmost protection that they have secret information files on suspected terrorists and mass murderers; is it not? If those organisations were prevented from being able to keep what information they have a secret, we would most definitely not be as confident and secure in the world’s current state of wars, terrorism, bombings and racial abuse.Whilst it may not be right that our privacy is not always guaranteed, it is wiser to be rational and realistic when addressing this topic. We may want our online activities to remain private, but it is not always up to us.


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“In order for users to retain privacy, emails are encrypted and browsing of webpages as well as other online activities are to be done traceless via anonymisers.”


exchange 2: against — fern championElizabeth, I agree with you on the fact that the internet is a public forum, but it has become so with users under the impression that they can also retain private information. Of course, there are certain instances whereby it is necessary that your online activities are monitored, but that should only occur with the individuals expressed permission. So, to use the example you have given with regards to an individual purchasing an item from an online company; it is necessary for both parties to keep track on the others online movements so that they are both aware of when money needs to be/has been exchanged, and when the item has departed/arrived. This has not lead to any invasion of privacy as the individual has chosen to give relevant details and as stated by the FIPs I mentioned before, ‘information about a person should not be used for a purpose other than the one it was collected for, without consent’. This therefore emphasises my point that people do expect their online activities to remain private, as the idea of privacy allows the individual to choose what others do or do not know about them.Furthermore, I am fully aware of the difficulties surrounding online security but it is common knowledge that systems and acts have been set up in order to protect users. For example, in order for users to retain privacy, emails are encrypted and browsing of webpages as well as other online activities are to be done tracelessly via anonymisers. This is all covered by the ‘12P Anonymous Network Act’. Whether such systems are effective or not is besides the point; the fact of the matter is that these systems are in place as there is a demand for people to be protected online thus they should and do expect their online activities to remain private.


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“You wouldn’t expect your postman to rifle through your mail before you delivered it would you? In fact, it is illegal to do so. Why should it be any different with email?”


You speak of brainwashing and manipulation being dangers of using the internet, and both occur when privacy has been breached. Surely this only supports my argument? We should expect our online activities to remain private so that such tragedies do not occur. If our activities could remain completely private then manipulation of others via the internet would not be possible, as the individual has chosen with whom and what information is shared. In fact owners of social networking sites and in general areas of the internet where a profile of an individual (with permission) is made, and it is a legal requirement that such sites incorporate privacy settings to protect individuals – you do not even have to show your profile picture on facebook to those you are not ‘friends’ with if you do not wish to. Every computer or online server has its own IP address. Every house/ accommodation has its own postal address. You wouldn’t expect your postman to rifle through your mail before you delivered it would you? In fact, it is illegal to do so. Why should it be any different with email? Technology is developing at a phenomenal rate and so it is inevitable that people will choose to communicate via email more than they do via internet, therefore the same laws and protections should apply. It is a moral justification for an individual to be able to retain their privacy. Cases of hacking and such like only prove my point further; albeit impractical, if the internet were a haven in which all users could keep their confidentiality then the case of Gary McKinnon would never had happened. In any society you will always get those who push, or even breach, laws. McKinnon did this and he was punished. NASAs security systems have since been strengthened, showing how important they feel their security is. Just because somebody has broken a law does not mean you should just abandon it all together – people still murder but it is illegal to do so. References[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_privacy


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“It can only be that our online activities should remain private as privacy has become such a vital aspect not only in ‘cyber-space’ but in everyday life.”


concluding statements:for — elizabeth barkerNot submitted

against — fern championElizabeth, we both seem to agree on the same point; the internet has expanded to the stage where there are 1,407,724,920 users (using your given statistic) and so online security is imperative. Precautions have to be made, and are done so, to protect the internet user from manipulation and misuse of confidential data and so thank-you for adding to my argument that (as you correctly agreed) we should expect our online activities to remain private.Also, I understand your concerns about the statistics I provided and so that is why I also gave the source. To get back to the point, I can see no reason or justification as to why we should not expect our online activities to remain private. You tentatively argue that FIPs (Fair Information Practices) are outdated as they were established in 1973 — what about the laws that our society abide on a daily basis? Is God’s commandment ‘thou shalt not steal’ outdated in that case? (It would also be wise to note that this could apply to the theft of somebody’s privacy). Britain prides itself on a flexible constitution; our laws do not become outdated as they are able to change with the times to suit the demands of the public. Thus, it can only be that our online activities should remain private as privacy has become such a vital aspect not only in ‘cyber-space’ but in every day life.


SCHOOLS' NETWORK


“In no democracy should the infringement of privacy be viewed as acceptable on the assumption that somebody is going to do something wrong.”


Furthermore, you seem to point out throughout your argument that it is only criminals who wish to keep their online activities private i.e. potential terrorists being pursued by the FBI. What about us normal law-abiding citizens? In no democracy should the infringement of privacy be viewed as acceptable on the assumption that somebody is going to do something wrong. Rules and Regulations, such as the more precise examples I gave you as well as parliament acts such as the Data Protection Act, are all in place with online privacy in mind, and even state security has to abide by them. My pledge to you is simple; it goes against all morals bestowed upon us as human beings for us not to expect our online activities to remain private. This is no question as to whether it is possible for the internet to be regulated but whether or not we, as members of a democracy in the 21st Century value our privacy. YES, we do, always have done and always will do and so that is why we should and do expect our online activities to remain private.


SCHOOLS' NETWORK

ABOUT Debating MattersDebating Matters because ideas matter. This is the premise of the Institute of Ideas & Pfizer Debating Matters Competition for sixth form students which emphasises substance, not just style, and the

importance of taking ideas seriously. Debating Matters presents schools with an innovative and engaging approach to debating, where the real-world debates and a challenging format, including panel judges who engage with the students, appeal to students from a wide range of backgrounds, including schools with a long tradition of debating and those with none.

Contact infoHelen Birtwistle Communications and Resources Manager Debating Matters Institute of Ideas Signet House 49-51 Farringdon Road LONDON EC1M 3JP T: 020 7269 9232

about rcuk global uncertainties programme Research Councils UK (RCUK) programme ‘Global Uncertainties: Security for all in a Changing World’ is one of the six RCUK priority themes. These programmes provide a focus for coordinating and funding multidisciplinary research and novel approaches to help the UK address major strategic challenges that will help shape the programme’s priorities and direction.The Global Uncertainties programme is intended to run from 2008 to 2018 and is being led by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). RCUK’s support of Debating Matters is driven by a commitment to public engagement. The establishment of the Global Uncertainties Schools network is a continuation of that commitment, engaging with young people and the public on issues of global security challenges.RCUK have identified key research areas for the Global Uncertainties Programme, which will address the complex and interdependent threats to security in the world today. Three of the areas will be explored during the Global Uncertainties six school events: Ideologies and beliefs, Terrorism and Cyber-security. Other key Global Uncertainties Programme areas include: Threats to infrastructures, Trans-national organised crime, Proliferation of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive weapons and technologies. Through research in these areas the programme aims to help governments, businesses and societies to understand how security threats can be better predicted, detected, prevented and mitigated.

Student written Head-to-Head competition: PRI VACY · terrorism, ideologies and beliefs and...

Documents

Transcript of Student written Head-to-Head competition: PRI VACY · terrorism, ideologies and beliefs and...